An interesting story out of Las Vegas. When my brother was practicing real estate there, a group of attorneys came up with an idea. The had access to the MLS and would look for closed lisitngs where the agent represented both parties. The would call the Seller and ask if he/she thought they got the best deal possible, were well represented and such. If the answer was yes, they’d call the Buyer and tell them that the Seller thought they got a great deal and pass-on what the Seller had said. In many cases the buyer would agree to bring charges against the agent for agency and representation violations. The cases were generally settled out of court and they nearly always won a judgement.

No, never worked for Schlott. Don’t want to bore Jim’s readers with CB history, the short of it is Frank Mancuso -(Coldwell Banker Hearthside) and Joe Fluehr (CB Poquessing) had the Bucks County Offices. CB Schlott never had an office in Bucks County.

Frank sold to Schlott a few years before CB bought Schlott (Fred I think). When CB bought out Schlott in 1991 they headquarted in Saddle River NJ and sold off the Mr. Schlott Bucks County office(s ) back to Frank.

I started with CB in NJ in 1990 – sub-agency.

Bucks County PA 1991-1996 sub-agency then buyer agency came into play arround 1992 0r 1993. You are correct that CB had “no policy” for Buyer Agency…no one did. The original policy lasted for about 30 days and then shifted away from true Buyer Agency pretty quickly, as it has in all states.

Florida 1996 to 1998. I was practicing in Florida (who already had Buyer Agency by 1996) when they eradicated Dual Agency in favor of Transaction Brokerage. Disaster from day one!

Sacramento area Full Dual Agency State 1998 to 2000

L.A. 2000 to 2004 same as Sacramento – Full Dual Agency meaning all agents with the same broke represent the seller, but nobody really “gets” that.

Seattle 2004 to present – Designated Agency with buyer represenation as the agent default position except for “the” listing agent – a single person.

I dare say I have practiced every form of Agency that has ever existed, including no agency, and happened to be at the right place at crucial times to see the events as they played out.

To this day, last I checked, NYC has no mls and no buyer agency…NYC!

Far from over…in many ways just beginning.

Thank YOU! It is rare that we are able to have these exchanges, AND have someone outside of our industry willing to care.

I admit that I limit the number of these discussions, as I have been fighting the good fight of Buyer Agency issues for way too many years. Too often gets annoying to my readers, so I am grateful to Jim for letting me soapbox it on his blog…just this once.

That is not the case, Michael. Dual Agency came before Designated Agency. Dual Agency came, in the same split second, as Buyer Agency.

At that time everyone who worked for the same broker became a Dual Agent if they had a buyer for any of their Office Listings. If that Broker was the broker for the whole County of offices, then all of those agents became Dual Agents if they had a buyer. That made it impossible for any agent in any of the offices to sell an office listing without Dual Agency coming into play.

Many areas, the whole state of CA (I believe) still operate this way.

Designated Agency became the answer to Dual Agency as it limited the issue to only one person…the specific listing agent…allowing other agents in the same office to represent the buyer. Some states (like Florida) outlawed Dual Agency and replaced it with Transaction Brokerage, so anytime a house was sold by another agent under the same broker, neither party could be represented. Not recommended. Oklahoma outlawed agency for anyone buying or selling a house

So Dual Agency, as you see it practiced in your state with Designated Agency in play, is at it’s most limited form without eradicating agency altogether.

Most sellers don’t like the idea that the company they hire and all of their agents cannot sell the house. That is why Dual Agency exists and can’t be eradicated by NAR…yet. There are still too many states, and some of the largest, who don’t have a satisfactory alternate route such as Designated Agency.

How many sellers would hire a company if they could not sell any of the listings of their own company unless the buyer agreed to no representation? That is why Dual Agency came to be.

As a side note, when Dual Agency first came to be, we envisioned ALL real estate offices would have to choose to be Buyer Agents ONLY or Seller Agents ONLY and each agent would have to choose and be housed in separate buildings. One Broker could have two offices, one with only buyer agents in it and the other with only seller agents in it.

Housed in two separate offices so that the buyer agents wouldn’t hear the bad news of a seller, or see other offers coming in on a listing in the fax machine so they could beat it. A seller’s agent likewise couldn’t accidentally overhear the conversation between a buyer and a buyer’s agent making an offer on their listing in the conference room in the same building.

That is why EBA and NAEBA were formed back then. “Exclusive Buyer Agents” and “National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents”. But the seller side never stepped into place…

Hopefully this history is enlightening and not boring. There are bigger issues than Dual Agency…much bigger. Three buyer clients of one agent both wanting the same house is largely more conflicting that one buyer and one seller wanting to transact on one house. To a large extent, Dual Agency being the BIGGEST issue with regard to agency is a myth perpetrated by the EBAs (originally). My having 3 buyers clients who have the same criteria is a conflict I eleminate…and most agents do not…and in my opinion is a much bigger conflict for my buyer clients than…just about anything else.

Essentially you can’t offer financial incentive to disadvantage the client. I just can’t find the case that I was referencing in where this became an issue.

I have had this situation and have asked the seller not to list the house until I could get my client (who I suspect has an interest) over to see it. If my client (the buyer as in your case) likes it, then I refuse to represent the seller.

So it can be done either way if the listing comes along while I am representing the buyer client. I can refuse the listing instead of cancelling my arrangement with the buyer.

Often the buyer likes having “first and exclusive crack” at the house, and so the buyer and seller choose for the seller to be a For Sale By Owner/unrepresented seller, and we proceed in that manner. It then becomes the seller’s option to hire a different agent to represent him or just sell it to my client.

Does that sound Kosher to you? It is unlikely that I would go to a listing appointment and not know if the house is of potential interest to one of my current buyer clients.

With the bubble situation and the economy, I don’t think that I am the only client out there who realizes that buying a home is far more important than flinging a couple of thousand dollars at a property, crossing my fingers, and hoping for the best. There has to be a way to make provisions that will better protect the buyer, the seller, and the agents. We just have to be committed to finding it, and working for it. Real estate is hopefully no longer a hobby for some agents and clients, and I think that the move towards transparency is what everyone needs to help revitalize markets everywhere, and level the playing field a bit more. I’m just one buyer, and there are other opinions out there, but this one is mine.